New York Times columnist David Brooks is given to periodic meditations triggered by the political environment: recently, he mused at some length over "what moderates believe.”New York Times columnist David Brooks is given to periodic meditations triggered by the political environment: recently, he mused at some length over "what moderates believe.”I’m not ready to endorse Brooks’ entire definition, which is a bit too formulaic and pietistic for my tastes, but I do think that one sentence describes the fundamental difference between “wingers” and moderates:Moderation is not an ideology: it’s a way of coping with the complexity of the world.I would probably phrase this differently, but I agree that moderation is an approach, an attitude, an openness to complexity rather than a set of rigid beliefs. A moderate is someone who recognizes the increasing ambiguities of modern life, someone who can make peace with a world where there is less black and white and more shades of gray without feeling disoriented or panicky.Moderates use terms like “it depends” and “it’s more complicated than that.”
Moderates reject justifications for the use of violence in service of ideology: they recognize that whether it is the Nazis or the AntiFa who oppose them, a resort to the use of force places zealots outside the norms of acceptable political discourse, undermining both the rule of law and fundamental American principles.
The True Believers of both the Right and Left are the enemies of functioning government. These are the judgmental, "my way or the highway” purists who prefer losing to taking half a loaf, who don’t understand that sustainable progress is almost always incremental, who have learned nothing from the history of revolutions.The GOP has pretty much rid itself of its moderates-it has actually made “moderate” a dirty word - and the party’s current inability to govern despite controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency is a direct result of its radicalization. Once-thoughtful elected officials now pander to the party’s rabid base in order to avoid being primaried-and it’s hard not to wonder if and when they’ll regret trading their souls and the tattered remnants of their integrity for another term in office.For their part, the Democratic Party’s purists are responsible for that party’s recurring "circular firing squads.” Here in Indiana, several have announced that they won’t support incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly because he is "insufficiently progressive." Their defection is likely to give Indiana a Republican zealot in his place - hardly an improvement, but evidently satisfying to those for whom ideological purity is more important than retaking the Senate. For the record, I am considerably more progressive than Donnelly, but he will vote against the upcoming attempts to eviscerate the social safety net in order to give huge tax cuts to the 1%, and every Republican running to replace him will enthusiastically vote for those measures. Should the Democrats retake the Senate (something they probably cannot do if Donnelly loses), Donnelly will also be a vote to replace Mitch McConnell-that alone is reason enough to support him. Politics has been called "the art of the possible." Moderates acknowledge that reality, and are willing to take something less than perfection if that "something less” is an improvement over the alternative.Come to think of it, perhaps “moderate” simply means "adult."